Comments about ‘Has Obama's foreign policy emboldened Putin?’

@open minded Mormon. You just asked the fatal question. My father was wounded
in WW I, I lost an uncle in WW I, a cousin in WW II, an in-law in Vietnam and
good friends in Korea. Oh, by the way I was shot at by the Chinese for 9 months
in Korea Please be quiet because you are offending mine and every other
veteran's sensibilities.

Boots on the ground is the only answer. Armed conflict is always the best plan.
Ground conflict in Eurasia is just a delight to contemplate. At least it is
for those who don't actually have to go or send their loved ones off to
fight.

Father of Four: Although I admire your patriotism, I am one that believes you
were part of the war machine that sent you there! There is a difference,
however, in setting up standing armies throughout the world, which is what the
warmongers want, including our invasion of Iraq, and letting the world know that
we are a nation that will not sit idly by and watch bullies conquer countries.
Obama doesn't believe in America as a Constitutional Republic built on
freedom and God-given rights. As such, he is weak, something Putin will now
take advantage of. If Netanyahu were President of the United States, Ukraine
would be a safe place. Period!

I am dumbfounded by either the lack of memory here, or just how unaware so many
seem to be of the regional history here. This "behavior" by Russia
predates both Obama and Bush. This same crowd has made the same types of moves
into not only Ukraine in the past, but most recently Georgia, Chechnya, the
former Yugoslavia, Czech Republic, Poland, and most notably, Afghanistan.
Russia even have threatened Finland.

If any of you think Obama had
influence here either way, you surely haven't been paying attention. This
is nothing new here. Thinking Obama, or Bush, influenced this type of thinking,
just isn't based on any factual record of history.

We are rally
stretching partisanship (and history) to make this a US driven event.

Crimea is not Ukraine. Crimea has been in Russian hands since the 18th Century.
It is their most important naval base and it is their only all-weather port.
Putin's move against Crimea is an act of desperation - Russia is in real
trouble if it loses this asset. So I doubt Putin's actions are in the main
a response to Obama's policies.

Please note I do not favor
Russia here because it is "socialist." It isn't, and it practices
a very degenerate brand of capitalism. I simply think it's not in our
interests to back Russia into a corner on this matter.

But look at the hand he was dealt. Bush's muscular foreign policy
left the US overextended with absolutely no credibility internationally. Obama
has naturally steered the other direction. No, I don't give him high marks
for his efforts to rehabilitate US diplomacy. But Obama's inability to
deal with Putin is without doubt the direct and inevitable result of 8 years of
neocon policy preceding him.

Even Bush realized that he had no
leverage by the twilight of his administration when Putin beat the stuffing out
of Georgia with barely a peep from the US.

In six months we will have gotten through this just fine. Putin will have
overstepped drastically. He will have done grave harm to his economy, to
Russia's position in the world and the Ukraine will be firmly aligned with
Europe, and thousands of America boys will still be alive and pursuing their
dreams.

Hard to tell where Crimea will be, but it won't matter.

True to form the conservatives and Republicans will still be running
around shouting..but, but, weak, Ukraine, Benghazi, IRS, etc. etc. etc.

"The article asks the wrong question. The proper
question we should be asking is: Has the conservative war of 24/7 hate against
President Obama saddened our foreign friends and emboldened our enemies.

When such a large contingent of Americans rise up against our President
and work openly to prevent him from doing anything, could it not have effect on
foreign peoples?"

Yeah, the same support liberals showed
President Bush during his time in office. The movie depicting the assassination
of President Bush (which was celebrated by liberals) wasn't hateful at all.
Yep, the support liberals showed Bush was a model for us all to follow.

The "Peace Through Strength" mantra sounds great. Until you get the
bill. We're still nowhere close to paying off Reagan's tab. Yet the
same folks who rail against the national debt and government spending are the
first ones to advocate blowing it on military hardware.

US deterrence
worked great to protect western Europe for 50 years. It didn't work so
well for the Hungarians in '56, the Czechs in '68, the Afghans in
'79, the Chechens on and off for 20 years, and the Georgians in '08.
The US has *never* been in a position to leverage Russia out of taking action in
its own periphery. Anyone advocating a new Cold War against Putin simply has no
understanding of the military and political implications of their demands.

"thank you for your service, but tell us, were you in the same branch of the
military as Benedict Arnold?"-lost in DC

I served in the
same military branch as Benedict Arnold. So did Washington, Grant, and
Eisenhower. Just what are you trying to say? That Army vets who disagree with
your views should be tainted by a 200 year old association? Chickenhawks are so
pro-military until a vet falls out of their political lockstep.

Obama detractors excoriating the President for not doing enough have been
careful not to spell out exactly what they would do if it was their call. This
is no occasion for being coy. Do they themselves know or have anything to put on
the table?

Military action? They hastily disavow they are advocating
that.

Diplomatic pressure? They equate that with Barack Obama doing
nothing.

Anyone who says Putin is emboldened by Obama is looking for an outcome that
isn't there. Let's examine the real reasons that Putin sent troops
into Crimea. First, Crimea was a Russian territory, prior to the area being
assumed by Ukraine, the reason it's even part of Ukraine is Khrushchev gave
it to them in 1954, prior to the breakup of the USSR, prior to the USSR breakup
it was no big deal. After the breakup the Russian fleet was allowed to continue
using Crimea as a base. It's the only year round military port the Russians
have access to. The other issues is that Crimea is the convergence point for
Russian natural gas pipelines. If you look at the facts, with political unrest
in the Ukraine, and the possibility of a western alignment, why wouldn't
Russia be nervous? *con'd*

*part 2* It's not like loosing that region cuts them off from their entire
fleet and a good portion of their energy supplies. Wait, yes it does. Regan,
Bush, Clinton or Obama, it wouldn't have mattered. I don't support
what Russia is doing, but it's not as black and white as the people who
want to start a was with Russia claim.

Interesting that the Obama supporters cannot, and will not address Obama's
dismal foreign policy. Nope, all they can do instead is ask the irrelevant
question: "What branch of the military did you serve in?" Since
you're asking, what branch did Obama serve in?

Even The
Washington Post is calling Obama out for his lack of understanding of foreign
policy, and how the world actually works in their Op-ed: "President
Obama’s foreign policy is based on fantasy"

We began losing
the respect of the world's thugs when Obama began his administration with
his embarrassing apology tour. Equally embarrassing was his groveling to
Russian President Medvedev: "This is my last election. After my election I
have more flexibility."

Part of Obama's
"flexibility" with Russia included gutting our military

All
Obama has garnered from his apology tour, weakness, indecisiveness, and
continual lines in the sand, is the ridicule of the world...namely our enemies.